liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Endre søk
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Efficacy of two breath condensers
Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för medicin och hälsa, Klinisk fysiologi. Linköpings universitet, Hälsouniversitetet. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Hjärtcentrum, Fysiologiska kliniken.
Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för medicin och hälsa, Klinisk fysiologi. Linköpings universitet, Hälsouniversitetet. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Hjärtcentrum, Fysiologiska kliniken.
2010 (engelsk)Inngår i: Journal of clinical laboratory analysis (Print), ISSN 0887-8013, E-ISSN 1098-2825, Vol. 24, nr 4, s. 219-223Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Examination of Exhaled Breath Condensate has been suggested to give information about inflammatory airway diseases. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to compare efficacy and variability in gain of two commercially available exhaled breath condensers, ECoScreen and RTube in an in vitro set up. METHODS: Test fluids containing myeloperoxidase (MPO) or human neutrophil lipocalin (HNL) in addition to saline and bovine serum albumin were nebulized and aerosols were transferred by a servo ventilator to either of the two condensers. Analyses of MPO, HNL, or chlorine were done by means of ELISA, RIA, or a modified adsorbed organic halogen technique (AOX), respectively. RESULTS: Recoveries of HNL were higher when using ECoScreen than RTube (Pandlt;0.05). In contrast, there were no significant differences between the two condensers in recoveries of MPO or chlorine. The spread of data was wide regarding all tested compounds. CONCLUSION: Variability in gain was large and ECoScreen was more efficacious then RTube in condensing the tested solutes of HNL, but not those of MPO or chlorine.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
2010. Vol. 24, nr 4, s. 219-223
Emneord [en]
Chlorine, HNL, MPO, exhaled breath condensate, efficacy
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-58821DOI: 10.1002/jcla.20389OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-58821DiVA, id: diva2:345867
Tilgjengelig fra: 2010-08-27 Laget: 2010-08-27 Sist oppdatert: 2017-12-12

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltekst mangler i DiVA

Andre lenker

Forlagets fulltekst

Personposter BETA

Davidsson, AnetteSchmekel, Birgitta

Søk i DiVA

Av forfatter/redaktør
Davidsson, AnetteSchmekel, Birgitta
Av organisasjonen
I samme tidsskrift
Journal of clinical laboratory analysis (Print)

Søk utenfor DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric

doi
urn-nbn
Totalt: 91 treff
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf